>>59048978>>59049010The only way someone couldn't get a well-conveyed concept is if that someone was a drooling retard; the type of person that thinks a sloth is a monkey, a turtle is an amphibian, or thought the false eyes on cradily were its real ones. That someone in question is little more than an animal. With a well-conveyed concept, anyone with the bare minimum mental faculties to be considered will understand it. With a poorly-conveyed concept, you need outside information to understand it, like with baxcalibur above. Nothing about its visual design suggests any sort of heat transfer or nuclear energy analogue. It has to be expressly told to you, whether that's its pokedex entry, ability, or someone talking about it. If a design has extra nuances conveyed through those things it's fine, nothing wrong with talking about how weezing will occasionally have a third head or how garchomp can fly, or whatever. The problem is relying on that extra information to convey the idea. If you had some default object like a solid white sphere and said "dude no not only is it a pearl but it's also based on crystal balls see here this pokedex entry says it's used by mystics when it's big enough and used as jewelry when it's young!!" then it would be a poorly-conveyed design. But if you showed images on it when it was large or had a string come out of it, or SOMETHING, it would be a more well-conveyed design because it's actually showing you what it's based on. (And before you say it, NO, well-conveyed and good are not coincident; there is overlap but this dumb example isn't a good or bad design, just one that is either well-conveyed or poorly-conveyed.)
